Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military chief rips U.S. message to Muslims

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Military chief rips U.S. message to Muslims

    Mullen says actions, not words, needed to erase 'arrogant Americans' label

    By Thom Shanker

    updated 6:25 p.m. PT, Thurs., Aug 27, 2009

    WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written a searing critique of government efforts at “strategic communication” with the Muslim world, saying that no amount of public relations will establish credibility if American behavior overseas is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting.

    The critique by the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, comes as the United States is widely believed to be losing ground in the war of ideas against extremist Islamist ideology. The issue is particularly relevant as the Obama administration orders fresh efforts to counter militant propaganda, part of its broader strategy to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    “To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate,” Admiral Mullen wrote in the critique, an essay to be published Friday by Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal.

    “I would argue that most strategic communication problems are not communication problems at all,” he wrote. “They are policy and execution problems. Each time we fail to live up to our values or don’t follow up on a promise, we look more and more like the arrogant Americans the enemy claims we are.”

    While President Obama has sought to differentiate himself from his predecessor, George W. Bush, in the eyes of the Muslim world — including through a widely praised speech in Egypt on June 4 — the perception of America as an arrogant oppressor has not changed noticeably, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, where United States forces remain engaged in war, and in Pakistan, where American-launched missiles aimed at militants from the Taliban and Al Qaeda have killed civilians.

    Last week, during a visit to Pakistan by Richard C. Holbrooke, Mr. Obama’s special envoy, Pakistanis told his entourage that America was widely despised in their country because, they said, it was obsessed with finding and killing Osama bin Laden to avenge the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    American messages 'lack credibility'
    Admiral Mullen expressed concern over a trend to create entirely new government and military organizations to manage a broad public relations effort to counter anti-Americanism, which he said had allowed strategic communication to become a series of bureaucracies rather than a way to combat extremist ideology.

    He also challenged a popular perception that Al Qaeda operates from primitive hide-outs and still wins the propaganda war against the United States. “The problem isn’t that we are bad at communicating or being outdone by men in caves,” Admiral Mullen wrote. “Most of them aren’t even in caves. The Taliban and Al Qaeda live largely among the people. They intimidate and control and communicate from within, not from the sidelines.”

    American messages to counter extremist information campaigns “lack credibility, because we haven’t invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven’t always delivered on promises,” he wrote.

    As a guide, Admiral Mullen cited American efforts at rebuilding Europe after World War II and then containing communism as examples of successes that did not depend on opinion polls or strategic communication plans. He cited more recent military relief missions after natural disasters as continuing that style of successful American efforts overseas.

    “That’s the essence of good communication: having the right intent up front and letting our actions speak for themselves,” Admiral Mullen wrote. “We shouldn’t care if people don’t like us. That isn’t the goal. The goal is credibility. And we earn that over time.”

    Members of Congress also have expressed concern about the government’s programs for strategic communication, public diplomacy and public affairs. Both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees have raised questions about the Pentagon’s programs for strategic communication — and about how money is spent on them.

    The Senate Armed Services Committee issued a budget report last month noting that while “strategic communications and public diplomacy programs are important activities,” it was unclear whether these efforts were integrated within the Pentagon or across other departments and agencies. “Nor is the committee able to oversee adequately the funding for the multitude of programs,” the Senate report stated.

    'Certain arrogance'
    Admiral Mullen did not single out specific government communications programs for criticism, but wrote that “there has been a certain arrogance to our ‘strat comm’ efforts.” He wrote that “good communications runs both ways.”

    “It’s not about telling our story,” he stated. “We must also be better listeners.”

    The Muslim community “is a subtle world we don’t fully — and don’t always attempt to — understand,” he wrote. “Only through a shared appreciation of the people’s culture, needs and hopes for the future can we hope ourselves to supplant the extremist narrative.”

    He acknowledged that the term strategic communication was “probably here to stay,” but argued that it should be limited to describing “the process by which we integrate and coordinate” government communications programs.

    Coinciding with the publication of his essay, Admiral Mullen released a YouTube video inviting questions from members of the armed services and the public on a range of national security and military personnel issues for an online discussion.

    “The chairman intends to use social media to expand the two-way conversation with service members and the public,” said a statement announcing the interactive video question-and-answer session.

    This story, "Message to Muslim World Gets a Pentagon Critique," originally appeared in The New York Times.
    NYT: Military chief rips message to Muslims - The New York Times- msnbc.com

    Looks like Obama hasn't apologized enough.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  • #2
    I can't believe it. Do I read it correctly? The Chief of Staff is criticizing the President who is the commander in chief of the country.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Merlin View Post
      I can't believe it. Do I read it correctly? The Chief of Staff is criticizing the President who is the commander in chief of the country.
      *Merlin, If he's in country he would know better then anyone in the Administration. The ones on the ground look it in the face every single day.;)
      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

      Comment


      • #4
        gunnut,

        Looks like Obama hasn't apologized enough
        that's actually what mullen argues against-- apologies are worthless without any visible action.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          gunnut,

          that's actually what mullen argues against-- apologies are worthless without any visible action.
          They are just realizing the fact that I knew a long time ago: Obama says a lot of things but all I hear is blah blah blah...
          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

          Comment


          • #6
            US – Islamic relations are a mess, and that has developed into major misunderstandings.

            Admiral Mullen is definitely right.

            The problem is most Iraqis and Afghans have seen the last six year as an occupation, and not a freedom-building mission. Most Iraqis’ lives have been turned upside down.

            In fact, about the only thing I agree with Bush about Iraq is that the US must stay in Iraq for the long-haul. The US should only exit Iraq when the Iraqis have been empowered to manage their own affairs, I don’t think we’re at that stage yet. But then that will leave Afghanistan short-handed. So what do we do? There is no right answer, but thanks to Bush for getting the US and taxpayers in this giant mess from which there is no return.

            The women in Afghanistan are no better off than when the country was ruled by the Taliban before the invasion. Then there is the issue of rising civilian casualties which makes the US look wreckless, even though we know the Army and the Air Force are doing their best to reduce collateral damage. Afghanistan’s civilian infrastructure needs to be developed, and the US can’t go at it alone. The EU needs to get more involved too, along with India and other countries. This will improve the quality of life of the Afghans and will be more effective than any kind of apology.

            Nebula82.
            Last edited by nebula82; 28 Aug 09,, 21:14.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by nebula82 View Post
              In fact, about the only thing I agree with Bush about Iraq is that the US must stay in Iraq for the long-haul. The US should only exit Iraq when Iraqis have been empowered to manage their own affairs, I don’t think we’re at that stage yet.
              The Iraqis say they are ready.

              Originally posted by nebula82 View Post
              But then that will Afghanistan short-handed. So what do we do? There is no right answer, but thanks to Bush for getting the US and taxpayers in this giant mess from which there is no return.
              So Bush screwed up. What does Obama do to fix it?

              It's like piling on Bush for "squandering the surplus." What does Obama do? Spend 3 times as much.
              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Merlin View Post
                I can't believe it. Do I read it correctly? The Chief of Staff is criticizing the President who is the commander in chief of the country.
                Well....he's the Commander-in-Chief for a uniformed member of any of the numerous Federal uniformed services…but for the rest of the population (read: civilians), he’s the President. :)

                Nebula82.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by astralis View Post
                  gunnut,



                  that's actually what mullen argues against-- apologies are worthless without any visible action.
                  Indeed. That's pretty much all the US did when the Abu Ghrab scandal broke, one of the most shocking scandals in recent memory and a humiliating event for many Muslims.

                  The most senior officer disciplined was a reservist Brigadier General, that’s peanuts when talking about the highest echelons of military command. General Sanchez and Secretary Rumsfeld should’ve been dismissed on the spot. That’s an example of action.

                  Nebula82.
                  Last edited by nebula82; 28 Aug 09,, 20:59.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Rumsfeld staying beyond 2004 was entirely Bush's fault. So was continuing with George "it's a slam dunk" Tenent as CIA chief.

                    So what's Obama gonna do about it?
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Wow. I see it totally different. If the problem is between rhetoric and action, and the action is deemed to be within national interest, why is it assumed the actions should change? Why not the rhetoric?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        OWO,

                        depends on the action in question, some of which may have been developed without public relations in mind.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Right. I'm just saying if an action is both effective and reasonably necessary, why would one focus on changing that, instead of the rhetoric surrounding/applying to it, which, nearly by definition, can be adapted and modified?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            OWO,

                            Right. I'm just saying if an action is both effective and reasonably necessary, why would one focus on changing that, instead of the rhetoric surrounding/applying to it, which, nearly by definition, can be adapted and modified?
                            as adm mullen says, we need to judge whether our actions are "effective and reasonably necessary" through the lens of public relations first, rather than seeing it as just a "nice to have".

                            that will have a greater impact than rhetoric. of course there's a lot of balancing that needs to be done.
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              as adm mullen says, we need to judge whether our actions are "effective and reasonably necessary" through the lens of public relations first, rather than seeing it as just a "nice to have
                              I agree with that. My issue was that the "our words and are actions are not congruent" claim seems to elicit a near unanimous, and possibly not entirely thought out reply of "Then change our actions" when I think one should look at both actions and words and go from there. In some cases, changing the words and continuing the actions would seem to be more pragmatic. But then, I'm no idealist, and there's plenty of such rhetoric I'd do away with that quite a few many would not.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X